Telangana High Court
Firast Ali Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12091 of 2023
DATE OF ORDER:08.04.2026
Between:
Firast Ali Khan
..Petitioner/Accused
AND
The State of Telangana
rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another.
...Respondents
ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in SC.Spl.No.76 of 2023, on the file of the learned V Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -cum- III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. 2
ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023
2. Heard Mr.Md.Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Patnam Sai Manideep, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned petitioner's counsel submits that the contents of the complaint, if they are taken on their face value, do not constitute any prima facie case against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has never committed the alleged offence of trespass and that in fact, the petitioner enjoys an injunction order vide O.S.No.350 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Karimnagar, FAC II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, which was decreed in favour of the vendor of the petitioner herein. Thus, pursuant to the decree, the defacto complainant is aggrieved and just to wreck vengeance against the petitioner herein, the present complaint has been lodged to settle the scores on civil side. He further submitted that no such offence as alleged in the complaint was committed by the petitioner herein and that the offences under Sections 448 or 427 IPC do not get attracted against the petitioner herein and that the prosecution has not collected ample material to prove the offences against the petitioners herein. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
3
ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the contents of the complaint themselves point out that one of the portions of the house of the defacto complainant's daughter was let out on rent to Raziya. Learned counsel argued that the house had two portions; one room was let out to Raziya and the other was kept in possession by the daughter of the defacto complainant and her articles were kept in the said room and that the accused herein had trespassed into the said room and has thrown away the articles of the daughter of the defacto complainant. That the defacto complainant is the mother of the victim and they belong to the said marginalized communities and it is the room belonging to the daughter of the defacto complainant that has been broke opened and the articles that were thrown away pertain to the daughter of the defacto complainant. Hence, the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act do get attracted in the present case and that the Police, after thorough investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 448 and 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023 in SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI AND OTHERS Vs. TAPAN KUMAR SINGH 1 wherein the Apex Court, while allowing the Appeal filed by the State, held as under:-
"It is well settled that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eye witness so as to be able to disclose in great details all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details, he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the 1 (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 175 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023 commission of an offence, which the concerned police officer is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can.
6. Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in KASHIBEN CHHAGANBHAI KOLI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT 2 wherein the Apex Court while referring Sections 427 IPC and 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act, held at Para 11 as under:-
"11. Therefore, the High Court was justified in holding the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 3(i)(v) of the Act. So far as Section 427 is concerned, the expression "mischief" has been defined in Section 425 IPC to mean an act done with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person causes the destruction of any property etc. In the instant case the evidence on record clearly establishes that the sugarcane stems in the fields of the claimants were totally destroyed by using a tractor. Therefore, Section 427 IPC is clearly established. The sentence imposed suffers from no infirmity to warrant interference."2
(2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 100 6 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023
7. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of charge sheet point out that the petitioner herein is alleged to have trespassed into the locked premises of the daughter of the de facto complainant by breaking it open and have thrown away the household articles pertaining to her daughter. The recitals of charge sheet further point out that LW3 is the eye witness to the alleged incident and LWs 7 & 8 are the Tahsildars who issued caste certificates pertaining to LWs 1 & 2 and the accused. The veracity of these witnesses need to be tested during the course of trial.
8. Learned petitioner's counsel further contended that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property and that the allegation of trespass cannot be alleged against him. However, the respondent's counsel has put it on record that an Appeal was preferred by the de facto complainant herein against the plaintiffs vide A.S.No.01 of 2021 and that the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has passed the decree without giving an opportunity of hearing to the defendants therein and that the said decree is not absolute and therefore it is set-aside. Thus, the contention of the learned petitioner's counsel on this ground cannot aid him in obtaining the relief of quashment in 7 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023 the present petition. The truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial.
9. Hence, in view of the above held discussion and in light of the decisions relied upon by the learned respondent's counsel, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the Trial Court.
10. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner/accused before the Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial. Further, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S.No.350 of 2013 at the earliest strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:08.04.2026 ysk 8 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023 9 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12091_2023 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12091 of 2023 DATE OF ORDER:08.04.2026 ysk